Peter Garrett welcomes changes to school chaplaincy program

Catch up on other NSCP posts here.

After scamming Aussies, Scripture Union QLD continues to maintain the fallacy;

Following changes announced today to the National School Chaplaincy Program. The Australian writes;

SCHOOLS will be able to choose whether to employ chaplains or secular welfare officers under changes to the federal government’s controversial chaplaincy program.

All new chaplains or youth workers employed under the program will also have to have a minimum qualification of a Certificate IV in youth work. Existing chaplains must have at least completed the mental health and making referrals units of the course.

The changes announced by Schools Minister Peter Garrett today include renaming the scheme the national school chaplaincy and student welfare program. Previously schools were able to use the funds to hire a youth worker only if they showed efforts to find an ordained chaplain had failed. […]

The school chaplaincy program is the subject of a High Court challenge, with Queensland father Ron Williams arguing the requirement for chaplains to be ordained is unconstitutional. [….]

The program also came under fire from the commonwealth ombudsman in July.

The Australian Christian Lobby of course, wants no part of independently contributing to sound “secular” care of student welfare. The tax payer can foot the bill just as for all things biblical;

HOBART 7 September 2011. Garrett announcement welcome

The Minister for Education and Skills, Nick McKim, has welcomed today’s announcement to extend the National School Chaplaincy Program to include secular student welfare services.

Mr McKim commended the decision by Federal Minister Peter Garrett which will allow school communities to employ either a chaplain or a secular student welfare worker.
“I commend Mr Garret for his decision because these changes address much of the feedback I’ve received from school communities,” Mr McKim said.
“I am pleased the program is to be extended to ensure principals and school communities are able to choose the right person to fit the needs of their students and local communities.
“This will give schools much greater choice in deciding whether they want to employ a chaplain or secular student welfare worker.
“Growing up in today’s world has its challenges for our young people and today’s announcement will provide them with the support they need.
“There are 95 chaplains currently working in Tasmanian schools and colleges.”
“I have asked my department to ensure that all schools are made aware of these changes to ensure they are fully informed of the options now available.”

PETER GARRETT: This morning I wanted to make an announcement about some changes that the Government will be making to the National Chaplaincy Program. I want to highlight some of those changes to you but to begin by saying this has been a very popular program. It’s one that the Government fully supports, and we’ve been through an extensive consultation process to determine what changes might be applied to the program in order to strengthen it and improve it. So today I can announce that we will broaden the scope of the chaplains program to include student welfare workers or secular workers in the schools as a part of that program.

We will strengthen the requirements for qualifications for those who work as chaplains in the schools under the program. We’ll also make additional requirements for the chaplaincy service providers, that they have strengthened requirements for the delivery of the program, and we’ll make available an extra $4000 to increase the amount for chaplains or the student welfare workers in remote, regional or disadvantaged communities from $20 000 to $24 000, to take account of the additional costs that can apply in remote areas.

What today’s announcement is about is taking a popular and positive program and making it better, with stronger qualifications and more choice for parents and school communities. And I’m really pleased that we’ve had the opportunity to take a program which is both popular and successful and improve and strengthen it. Now, I should add that in relation to those chaplains who are already working under the program and who don’t have minimum qualifications, the Government recognises that there is a need for them to have some minimum qualifications in the areas of mental health and referral qualifications that already exist under equivalent Cert IV qualifications. That will be a requirement for those chaplains already in the program, but the Government will provide them with the assistance to get those qualifications.

This is a program which is all about giving schools the choice about having a chaplain or a student welfare worker in their school. Schools are in the driving seat in this program.  It is a popular program and it is one that the Government fullysupports and, additionally, has provided funding for another 1000 schools to take the opportunity to have these services in their schools. I’m extremely confident that the changes we’ve made will deliver a program which suits the school communities right around Australia. I know this is a very popular program. It’s one that the Government fully supports and I commend these changes.

QUESTION: Minister, there was a High Court challenge in which the judgement’s due by the end of the year. Did the Ron Williams challenge play a part in making the Government expand its secular welfare movements?

PETER GARRETT: The consideration as to whether or not the program should be expanded for secular workers was one which was made prior to the High Court challenge that considered the chaplains program. It was an issue that had been raised in the consultation process that the Government had undertaken, and it’s an issue which we’ve always known is one which some parents and some school groups and organisations have raised previously.

QUESTION: With these student welfare workers, what do you mean?

PETER GARRETT: We’re providing the opportunity for schools to choose somebody who has an equivalent Cert IV qualification, someone who’s in a position to provide support and advice in the school community, as chaplains do, but effectively is a secular worker.

QUESTION: When you say student though, are they still at uni? Or is it do you mean that as in counselling a student? A youth worker or something?

PETER GARRETT: What I’m saying here is that schools can either choose to have a chaplain delivering the services under the program or a welfare worker delivering those services under the program, and there’ll be minimum requirements for both of those capacities, whether chaplain or a welfare worker.

QUESTION: Minister, there was a concern earlier that some of these chaplains were pushing religious views and trying to convert people to Christianity. Do you have concerns about the particular conduct of some chaplains under the program previously?

PETER GARRETT: I can’t stress strongly enough that the guidelines in the program are absolutely crystal clear that chaplains are not there to provide religious instruction or to proselytise, and that definitely remains the case. It is not appropriate that this is delivering religious instruction – and the guidelines and the code of conduct expressly forbid that. In those small number of cases where charges of proselytisation have been made, they’ve been investigated. I’m very confident that this is a program that is delivering into school communities the kind of services they think benefits students.

Remember, this is a voluntary program. Schools choose whether they want to have a chaplain or, now, a student welfare worker and I’m very confident that schools will make that choice, taking into account the views of their school community.

QUESTION: When will that come in?

PETER GARRETT: We will process the opportunities for those schools that want to continue the chaplain program over the coming week. We’ll also then start to process the additional applications for the thousand schools that additionally the Government is committed to. I do want to place on record my thanks for all of those groups that participated in the consultation process, the chaplaincy service providers, the principals and parents associations, and other interested parties. The fact is that we are fully committed to making sure that we put schools in the driving seat to determine whether they want to have a chaplain working in the school to help students or whether they want to have a welfare worker working at the school.

QUESTION: Minister, Labor power brokers say that Julia Gillard has until the end of the year to turn things around for Labor or there will be a change of Prime Minister. Should Julia be dumped as leader if she doesn’t turn things around by Christmas?

PETER GARRETT: The Prime Minister has my full support and the support of the caucus. We’ll continue to prosecute what I think are the important issues that Australians do care about. That includes the announcement that I’m making today. That includes the reforms that we have underway with delivery of the National Broadband Network, the big education reforms that we’re rolling out, improving schools, making sure that kids get the best education they can. That’s what Australians are interested in us doing and that’s what I’m interested in talking about.

QUESTION: Why shouldn’t Kevin Rudd be given another chance as Prime Minister?

PETER GARRETT: Well, again, I’m not going to provide a whole heap of commentary around these issues. I think that everybody wants to see the Government continue to deliver the reforms that we think are in the national interest and that’s what we’re going to do.

QUESTION: So will you be hoping she gets elected for another [term]?

PETER GARRETT: There’s no question about that.

QUESTION: And how long can the party afford to wait before action needs to be taken?

PETER GARRETT: Well, again, the most important thing for us to do as a government is what we are doing – making announcements such as the announcement that I’m making today, committing ourselves to improving the educational opportunities for young Australians and making sure that we continue with the significant health reforms that are out there, ensuring that we have a focus on those Australians – say, for example, in the disability area, who have not been given the level of attention that they deserve by our coalition opposition in the past and are now getting the level of attention they deserve from this government.  These are the things that count and these are the things that we’ll focus on.

QUESTION: Minister, will you be a Labor candidate for Kingsford Smith at the next election?

PETER GARRETT: I’ve always said that I intend to stand again and, at the moment, I’m absolutely relishing the opportunity not only to serve the people of Kingsford Smith, but also to bring forward policies which I think are better for the people of Australia. If Australians care about the quality of political leadership, then the Opposition Leader today should distance himself from the actions of the Parliamentary Secretary, Cory Bernardi, who is providing a great succour to an extremist politician who has dangerous views which are completely at odds with Australian culture and Australian values.

And I am extremely concerned to see that Senator Bernardi, who has consistently put a hardline view on a range of issues, has now offered support to a Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, whose views are extreme and dangerous. And Mr Abbott should show some leadership, discipline this Senator, remove him from his portfolio responsibilities, and ensure that he makes it absolutely clear that there is no place in a country like Australia, where our values are values of fairness and tolerance, for the kind of actions that Senator Bernardi has embarked upon in offering to support this extremist overseas politician.

QUESTION: Well, John Howard had Pauline Hanson disendorsed from the Liberal Party in 1996. Are you saying Tony Abbott should have Cory Bernardi kicked out of the Liberal Party in 2011?

PETER GARRETT: It’s up to Mr Abbott to make clear what action he’s going to take in relation to Senator Bernardi’s dangerous and completely unacceptable offer of assistance to an extremist politician. The ball is in Mr Abbott’s court if he understands the significance of the actions that Senator Bernardi has taken, and I would like to think that he does understand the significance of them, then he ought to take the appropriate action – it’s in his hands.

QUESTION: Just a – do you support a return to offshore processing of refugees?

PETER GARRETT: I’ve already made my comments clear in relation to what I think the Government has in front of us following the High Court decision. You’ve seen the subsequent comments made by the Prime Minister and we’ll continue to deal with this issue in the most appropriate way, given the decision that the court has made. Thanks everybody.

QUESTION: I’ve just got one more question, sorry.

UNKNOWN: Just when you thought you were –

QUESTION: It’s about the chaplains or the secular workers actually.

PETER GARRETT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Where are the secular workers going to come from?

PETER GARRETT: Look, they’ll come from the community and from those areas of expertise of people who have those qualifications.

QUESTION: But the chaplains don’t get paid very much so you’re asking non chaplain workers who are supported by their churches to come and do the work with them for the same amount of money?

PETER GARRETT: Yeah. It’s the same figure for the chaplains or the welfare workers, other than that we’re providing the additional amount up to $24 000 for the remote and disadvantaged areas.  Look, I’m confident that there will be a source of people that want to come in and do this work. I know that we have people who are coming through the TAFE system, through the university system, through non government organisations and others, who have these equivalent qualifications who would relish the opportunity of working in schools, and providing assistance and support to kids in those schools.

QUESTION: For $20 000 a year?

PETER GARRETT: Well, I don’t have any doubt at all that in the same way as we’ve seen chaplains come into the schools for two days during the week normally, that the same opportunities will arise for the welfare workers.

QUESTION: Is the expansion of this to the secular workers a recognition that not everyone was happy with the religious nature of the program?

PETER GARRETT: The broadening of the program is a recognition that we want to provide schools with every opportunity to exercise a range of choice as to who they want to have operating in their school community. The fact is that the chaplains program has been a popular and positive program. It’s well supported by schools and given that it’s a voluntary program, I have every expectation that we’ll continue to see large numbers of chaplains in schools, but we’re also providing the opportunity for schools to make a choice about the kind of person they want working in their school. And if they do desire a secular worker in the school, then that opportunity is there for them.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, the $24 000 a year, that’s for ones in regional or remote areas – so is that outside capital cities? How would that criteria work?

PETER GARRETT: Look, there’s a series of definitions that the Department applies to those criteria and that will be made clear to the applicants.

QUESTION: So would the Central Coast of New South Wales be part of – considered regional or would that be part of the Sydney metropolitan for chaplains?

PETER GARRETT: Well, in terms of the Department’s definition, that’s something for them to determine but the point of the additional investment that we’re providing to the program is to enable schools that are in remote and regional areas and in disadvantaged communities as well to take advantage of this program. So the Department will have a set of indices that apply to that and the guidelines will make clear what they are and schools will have the opportunity of applying.

Thanks, everybody.

Leo Igwe talks witchcraft, Christianity & superstition in Nigeria

Interviewed on ABC Melbourne by Lindy Burns, Leo Igwe, West and Southern African Director for the International Humanist and Ethical Union, discusses the struggle faced by skeptics and humanists on the African continent.

A regular contributor to The Skeptic magazine and The Humanist in Australia, Leo’s work is well known amongst humanists and skeptics. Facing superstitious beliefs, clever scams, exploitation and violent retribution for exercising free thought – including attacks on his family – Leo has a difficult role. Having recently spoken to Victorian Skeptics and Victorian Humanists Leo also spoke at Trades Hall in Melbourne.

One issue that stuck in my mind after hearing Leo speak is that whilst one child dies from malaria every 30 seconds in Africa frequently the cause is assumed to be witchcraft. In view of this, parents do not take the ill children to hospital but to evangelical churches where exorcisms and prayers are offered as a “cure” instead. These children die long painful deaths, although some do make it to hospital… eventually.

Yes, What’s The Harm? indeed.

[audio http://traffic.libsyn.com/firesnake/leo-igwe-interview-for-web.mp3|righticon=0xff0000|righticonhover=0xFFFFFF|loader=0xff0000]

Or download audio

Howard’s bigoted legacy is still with us

Yesterday was National Marriage Day, a celebration of homophobia, bigotry and fundamentalist clap trap held at Parliament House and organised by my old agents provocateur Warwick and Alison Marsh of The Fatherhood Foundation aka Dads4kids.

In recent years I spent a great deal of time in the immensely rewarding debunking and challenging of Christian Science and fundamentalism that had crept into illicit drug policy, leaving high numbers of vulnerable Aussies dead and/or abused in exorcisms. Young earth creationists, enemies of Darwin and “postmodernist science”, I remember one member writing on a public email list that I was “filled with hate” after I quoted from a Skeptic publication. I had begun to call family values “the F Word”.

Thanks to John Howard’s archaic views and federal health minister (no less) Tony Abbott’s short sightedness Australia fell away from being a world leader in harm reduction. In crept new terms like “harm prevention” (behaviour modification) and the argument amongst many that a family that eats together and goes to church together is “drug proofing” children, that jail was “compassionate”, even “love”. “I can’t help you if you can’t read (the bible)”, offered one opponent.

Debates on controlling lethal blood borne viruses flowed easily across the lines of discrimination and strident attempts were made to ban “addiction causing” needle exchanges, close injecting facilities and revive that old standard – condoms “cause” AIDS by promoting sexual promiscuity. We struggled to defend against well funded attacks from those who treated addiction not as a health problem, not just as a crime problem but as sin. Our problem, one Parliamentary Inquiry was told was that we suffered from “the disease sex, drugs and rock n roll”.

The epidemiological mechanisms of HIV spread are well known. Safe sex and safe injecting as components of harm reduction protect our entire community. Yet for some God fearing conservatives “beasts” and “self abusing sinners” just must not be. Worse, one only need read Andrew Bolt to see how easily is is to whip up support for all things “unnatural”. Drug policy critics, architects and representatives of the gay community and HIV educators were all targetted. Slowly but surely they drew their plans against us.

Yet, with reality being the undeniable thing it is, they gradually faded into the background. Although not until undermining 25 years of public health progress that is still years from being regained. To be sure the creatures from Drug Free Australia are still with us but are presently relegated primarily to preaching to Swedish and Scandinavian based human rights opponents. Where organised far right wing Christian fundamentalism against anything left leaning (that arguably bolsters dangerous minds like Anders Brevik) has it’s home.

A constant feature popping up and leaving you momentarily too stunned to move – like some moral horror from a Whack-a-Mole game designed by Stephen King – was Dads4Kids. Their delusion is simple. A Christian family “as God intended” is the answer to all social ills, whilst it’s absence is the cause.

So, it was with little surprise yesterday that I noticed Wazza and Aly playing much the same tune as on 18th September 2007 when John Howard took the podium at the National Strategic Summit on Marriage, Family and Fatherhood (see video below). John was also kind enough to open up Parliament House for the occasion. “Key leaders” in the “marriage, family and fatherhood movement” gathered along with whom Wazza and Aly claim were “academics and researchers”.

The “marriage manifesto” – A vision for the renewal of marriage in Australia today was born to these proud beaming parents. No doubt a phobic blueprint for discrimination against equality and same sex union, peppered with horrors that must befall the little ones, it’s success is mimicked in the fact that no-one has ever heard of it. They also released 21 Reasons Why Gender Matters (embedded below) which links homosexuality to drug abuse, crime and paedophilia. Speakers also included Senator John Holt, then Attorney General, Philip Ruddock, shadow Attorney General Joe Ludwick, minister for family and community, Mal Brough, minister for immigration, Kevin Andrews “and many others”. John Howard takes us back to Missouri circa 1950;

…. I am a strong believer that every child should have the opportunity of growing up with a mother and a father. I have that very strong view and you will be aware that I practiced what I preached in relation to policy issues on that, stretching way back to some stances I took in relation to IVF and er.. the like, some years ago. And of course the changes to the definition of marriage in the federal marriage legislation which I sponsored in 2004. I also happen to believe that a proper functioning family is the best social welfare system mankind’s ever devised [Applause]…. I wish you well and I think the goals of your coalition are first rate and I hope to keep in communication with you…

Oh my. How quickly we forget. How well Abbott has blinded us to the dysfunctional impact of conservatism. Given Abbott has no alternative policies and runs on the adrenalin of contrary attacks on Julia Gillard we would do well to remember this is the very dreck we so longed to have gone from federal office. In November 2009, Nicola Roxon dumped from her staff a “health ambassador” who was a co-author of 21 reasons why gender matters. At almost the same time, Abbott described himself as “the ideological love child of John Howard and Bronwyn Bishop”. Be afraid dear reader, be very afraid. The bigotry of the Coalition is alive and well.

So yesterday’s phobic fun fest was predictable. Always attention seeking and always unprofessional Warwick and Alison Marsh chose to channel Miranda Devine, who recently linked gay parents and Penny Wong to the London riots. It was no accident that Devine published her article in the lead up to National Marriage Day, and took a swipe at Labor’s upcoming national conference with same sex marriage on the agenda. Devine wrote in part;

The traditional heterosexual norm of a nuclear family and children is something to be kept in a closet like an embarrassment… No one can be a wife or husband any more. Everyone is a “partner”.

“You don’t have a child to make a political point, do you?” [Wong] says. But others are having a field day, cynically using the four-month pregnancy as a weapon in the relentless push for same-sex marriage.

You only had to see the burning streets of London last week to see the manifestation of a fatherless society. The collapse of family life in Britain has been laid bare, reported to have the highest proportion of single mothers in Europe and nearly half of all children suffering family breakdown by the age of 16.

Devine is still fighting criticism on Twitter almost three days later as I write. The Marsh couple, whose impact on kids who don’t fit their narrow views is all too clear and who use creepy terms like “father wound” to describe the absence of a father, also missed the primary flaw in this foul argument. Over one third of heterosexual marriages fail and one would expect these moral judges to get their own house in order before launching into single mums and gay couples. Nonetheless Wazza and Aly shine with their duo performance;

Warwick: Cultural elites many are whom are ultra-feminists have waged war on marriage and fatherhood in Britain for three decades. Last weeks riots are a prime example of their success.

Alison: Tragically exactly the same thing is happening here in Australia. Congratulations have flowed to the well known radical feminist Penny Wong, and her lesbian partner on the impending birth of her partners new baby.

Warwick:  But where are the tears for the child who will grow up without her father in the home? Or where are the tears for the fatherless children who will one day occupy over 70% of the capacity of our already overcrowded jails?

Alison: Where are the tears for the fatherless children who medicate their father wound through self destructive alcohol, drug, porn and sex addiction? And who will in many cases end up taking their own lives.

Bob Katter was there seeking to reclaim the word “gay”. “Nobody has the right to take that word off us… and that image off us”. No real comment other than an observation. The only other time I’ve heard this nonsense was during an awesome episode of The Infidel Guy in which Regi did battle with a hate filled and foul mouthed Tim Phelps. The son of Westboro Baptist founder Fred Phelps, Tim also had deep longings for this “beautiful word”. I imagine Fred Flintstone is similarly shattered.

Fortunately Peter Reith, Fran Kelly and Peter Lewis give this insult the swift disposal it deserves. “Disgraceful, shameful… a warping of the debate to talk about fatherless children as though they’re the children of gay couples… the most offensive thing I’ve heard on The Drum, including anything panelists have ever said”.

Now on with the show below. But I’ll stress this one more time. Just what do you think the science illiterate Tony Abbott has to offer Australians? Be afraid… be very afraid.

National Marriage Day Critiqued on The Drum

National Strategic Summit on Marriage, Family and Fatherhood 2007

Why Gender Matters

High Court challenge to school chaplaincy discussed on The Drum

Theologian and former Uniting church minister, Scott Stephens from ABC Religion makes sound sense in discussing the “messy” role of chaplains in Aussie schools, also defending the High Court challenge by Ron Williams.

Part of Christian service is to be clear about ones beliefs influencing the way one lives, Scott stresses. This leaves chaplains to deal with the reality that they will always promote Christian living, whether they proselytise or not. Part of Christian service is to express their own experience as followers of Jesus. Most chaplains Scott knows have “no idea… what are we supposed to be doing on school grounds?” They end up “a defacto teacher’s aid”.

Brilliantly he identifies Gillard’s extension of chaplaincy funding as a way to “baptise her faith in schools” and thus curry favour with the Christian Lobby. He is “not at all” in favour of chaplains in schools due to the the “moral quagmire” that follows government funding.

As church attendance has fallen lobbying plus reliance on government funding has grown. This plus “… reliance on legislation to cement it’s role…that’s a pretty clear sign church leaders no longer believe in God”. Tim Mander can make up as much piffle as he likes in defending his dodgy scam and free ride, but the facts are clear. Money changes everything.

Problems arose after The Australian yesterday published an article on creep and bigot, creationist John Mackay lecturing at Gympie State High School at the invite of a Scripture Union QLD chaplain. Other comments from Andrew Clennell and Tim Wilson.